And he
could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick
folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went
round about the villages, teaching. (Mark 6:5-6)
This passage in the Gospel of
Mark presents a strong “humanitarian” Christology (one I would argue that onlyLatter-day Saint Christology is can be consistent with if one also believes inHis personal pre-existence) as well as one that is very “Open Theistic.” Note
the following commentaries from an Anglican and two Roman Catholics on this
text:
5 There is a delightful irony in the juxtaposition
of the two clauses of this verse: for most people the healing of a few invalids
by laying hands on them would hardly constitute οὐδεμία δύναμις. Matthew’s statement that οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἐκεῖ δυνάμεις πολλάς avoids the paradox, but also loses the vividness
of Mark’s language. Both evangelists attribute Jesus’ ‘minimal’ miraculous
activity to the ἀπιστία of the people of
Nazareth, but Mark’s οὐκ ἐδύνατο is bolder, in suggesting that not even the ἐξουσία of Jesus is unlimited.
Mark often highlights the importance of πίστις in healing and other miraculous contexts (2:5;
4:40; 5:34, 36; 9:23–24; 10:52; 11:22–24), so there is no surprise in seeing
the opposite effect attributed to ἀπιστία, but the description of Jesus as unable to work miracles is
christologically striking, and is not greatly alleviated by the mention of the ὀλίγοι ἄρρωστοι who were the exception to the rule.. . . 6 The mention of Jesus’ surprise (only here in Mark;
the verb is more normally associated with the crowds) further underlines the
‘human’ character of Mark’s portrait of Jesus. It also highlights the contrast
between Jesus’ reception in Nazareth and the general popularity which he has
come to enjoy in the lakeside towns. The immediate mention of teaching in other
villages of the neighbourhood (κύκλῳ indicates that he remained in the hill country
around Nazareth rather than returning yet to the lake) suggests that he did not
stay long in Nazareth, but rather followed the principle which he is about to enunciate
in v. 11. The specific mention that Jesus was διδάσκων is typical of Mark’s summaries (1:21–22;
2:13; 4:1–2, etc.); it is not to be interpreted as exclusive (teaching and not performing miracles), since
there is no indication that other villages shared Nazareth’s hostile attitude,
and the similar statement in 1:21–22 leads straight into miraculous activity
(which is itself remarkably described as διδαχή). (R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A
Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002], 244)
5. he was
unable to do any mighty deed: The reason for this inability appears in
6:6a, the unbelief of his friends and family. This means that Jesus does not
come as a magician or miracle worker who dazzles his audience with works of
power that compel belief (see 15:32: “come down from the cross that we may see
and believe”). It does mean that where there is no openness to the power of God
(6:2) or where that power becomes a stumbling block to preconceptions the
“mighty work” as an invitation to deeper faith and discipleship cannot take
place.
apart from healing a
few sick people:
Bultmann sees a contradiction between vv. 5a and 5b and views it as evidence
that the whole incident here is artificially composed (History of the Synoptic Tradition 30). Matthew rewrites the whole
of Mark 6:5 to say simply that “he did not do many mighty works there” (13:58),
thus removing any hint that Jesus’ power was limited. Mark’s exception implies
that the object of the disbelief by the townspeople was the complete prophetic
mission of Jesus (his wisdom and mighty works). Jesus still retains the power
to do mighty works in the face of disbelief. What he cannot do is compel
acceptance. There may also be a very subtle allusion to Isa 53:3–5 here. Though
God’s Servant is without honor and rejected by all people in v. 3, in v. 4 he
is said to bear the infirmities of the people who are healed through his
suffering (53:5).
6a. he was
shocked at their unbelief: “Shock” (ethaumazen)
is a normal (positive) reaction by crowds to the power of Jesus. It is used
only here of Jesus and represents a paradoxical counterreaction to unbelief.
Matthew omits this reaction of Jesus in line with his other editorial changes
of passages in Mark that might seem to diminish the power or dignity of Jesus. Though
“unbelief” (apistia) is used only
here and in 9:24 (“help my unbelief”), it reflects the stark alternatives in
Mark between belief and unbelief and between understanding and lack of
understanding. It also functions here much like blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit in 3:29, that is, as a misuse of human freedom that closes the person to
the action of God. Matthew softens Mark’s stark alternatives by describing the
followers of Jesus as people of “little faith” (6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8). (John R. Donahue and
Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark [Sacra Pagina; Collegeville,
Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2002], 185-86)
Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology